About Rationally Speaking

Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Faith and Reason

One of the constantly bewildering aspects of living on planet Earth is the assumption that most human beings seem to make that faith (usually, but not necessarily, the religious variety) is a virtue. This bizarre attitude — just to add insult to injury — often comes coupled with the equally strange idea that somehow too much reason is bad for you. Why?

Faith means that one believes something regardless or even in spite of the evidence. This, I should think, is so irrational, and potentially so bad for one’s health, that educators and policy makers would be very worried at the prospect of a nation where faith was praised and encouraged. I mean, suppose I tell you that I have faith in my auto mechanic, but then you discover that the guy knows nothing about cars, can never get one fixed, and on top of that charges me thousands of dollars every time I see him. You would be outraged at him, possibly to the point of calling for legal action against the rascal, and you would pity me for being such a fool. Now substitute any of the words “Preacher,” “Pope,” “Imam,” or even “Guru” for mechanic in the above example, change the care of my car to the care of my soul (whatever that is), and suddenly you get the phenomenon of strong social and legal defense of the concept of organized religion. How nut is that?

But Massimo, people usually ask me whenever the f-word is brought up, don’t you have faith in anything? Nope, I say, a denial that is immediately met with both bewilderment and commiseration. Don’t I have faith in my wife, for example? No, I trust her because I know her and know that she loves me. What about faith in humanity, considering that I profess to be a secular humanist? No, I have hope for the human lot, and even that is seriously tempered by my awareness of its less than stellar record throughout history.

Ah, but I believe in evolution, don’t I? Yes, I do, but notice the switch between “faith” and “belief,” two words that don’t necessarily mean the same thing at all. A belief is something one thinks is true, but beliefs — unlike faith — can be held in proportion to the available evidence and reasons in their favor. I “believe” in evolution because the evidence is overwhelming. I don’t have faith in evolution.

Okay, then, the irrepressible defender of faith might say, what about your acceptance of things you cannot possibly prove, either logically or empirically, such as that there is a physical world out there (instead of the universe being a simulation in someone’s mind)? Isn’t that faith? Nope, it’s a reasonable assumption that I adopt for purely pragmatic reasons, because it seems that if one rejects it apparently bad things will happen to him (like smashing his brains on the ground while believing that he can fly off of a skyscraper).

The exasperated faithful will then conclude that my life must be devoid of emotions, and that I am — once again — deserving of pity and commiseration more than anything else. But of course this is yet another common confusion that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny: my life is as emotionally rich as anyone else’s, I think, in accordance with both philosopher David Hume’s and neurobiologist Antonio Damasio’s conclusion that a healthy human existence requires a balance between reason and emotion. Without reason, we would not have been able to build our complex civilization; but without emotion we wouldn’t have given a damn about accomplishing anything at all. Still, while faith is obviously emotional, it is not a synonym of emotion; the latter is necessary, the former is parasitic on it.

What about this insane idea that somehow we live in a hyper-rational society which is already too burdened by the triumph of reason? If we are, it is hard to distinguish such society from a hyper-irrational one dominated by faith. This conceit that too much reason is bad is a leftover from the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment, the so-called “age of reason” (which lasted much too briefly, and during which time reason was heard, but hardly dominated human affairs). If one wants to have a good measure of how little reason plays into our society, one only has to listen for a day to what most of our politicians say, or to what most of our journalists write, not to mention of course the often surprisingly frightening experience of simply overhearing people’s conversations on the subway or at work.

We are frequently told with a certain degree of smugness that we need to go “beyond reason,” even though that phrase is uttered by people who likely wouldn’t be able to pass logic 101. Now, this isn’t to say that reason is boundless, much less that it is a guarantor of truth. Reason is a tool, fashioned by natural selection to deal with largely mundane problems of survival and reproduction in a specific type of physical and social environment. But it seems to work pretty darn well even when it comes to proving complex mathematical theorems, constructing excellent hypotheses about how the universe got started, and even providing us with decent guidance on how to conduct human affairs while maximizing justice and minimizing killings — at least in theory!

Faith doesn’t bring us beyond reason, as amply shown by the fact that not a single problem — be it scientific, philosophical or socio-political — has ever been solved or even mildly ameliorated by faith. On the contrary, faith has a nasty tendency to make bumbling simpletons of us, to waste our energies, time and resources on pursuit that do not improve the human condition, and at its worst it convinces people to drive planes into skyscrapers, or to mount “holy” crusades to slaughter the “infidel.” Faith is not a virtue, it is a repudiation of one the few good things human beings have going for them: a little bit of reason.

83 comments:

"Faith means that one believes something regardless or even in spite of the evidence."

Sorry, this is not faith- at least in the Christian sense. There is such a thing as irrational faith, which by definition is obviously irrational. But, this is not the Christian understanding of faith, which throughout the Bible is based on evidence.

English is a wonderful language. In romanian (also known as "italian lolcat" after PZ's "Crezi in Dumnezeu?" post) we have the same word for faith and belief: "credinţă", from the latin "credo". Which is retarded.

Romanians don't have many words for ideas that express reason in action. We don't have a word for "fallacy" and the word for "[logical] consistency" is used in cooking.

Ahwsan, what evidence does the Christian faith depend on, that is superior to the evidence given for other faiths such as the Muslim faith? You have your holy book, they have their holy book. You have your miracles, they have theirs.

I've said before that "evidence" that supports no hypothesis, or all hypotheses, in not evidence at all.

Faith also builds a psychological barrier to one's future understanding of the universe, even if the person is open to new information. Any amount of emotional investment in one reality over another will trigger a person to overvalue evidence for that reality and undervalue evidence against it. Even if this is rarely a significant handicap in that person's daily life, why bother taking on the handicap at all? What's so unbearable about simply not having an opinion on something until evidence steers you in one direction or another?

"change the care of my car to the care of my soul (whatever that is), and suddenly you get the phenomenon of strong social and legal defense of the concept of organized religion."

Well you see care of the soul is quite different from fixing a car, because the soul doesn't have to 'work' in the way a car does, the soul doesn't have to do anything, the soul doesn't have to get you from here to there, or start on a cold morning, or stay on the road as opposed to veering around wildly like a drunken hummingbird. This means that anything and everything can be considered 'care of the soul' and therefore that priests and imams don't have to meet the kinds of standards that mechanics do. Clerics get to just say they've fixed your soul, and who is to say they're prevaricating?

"The exasperated faithful will then conclude that my life must be devoid of emotions,... my life is as emotionally rich as anyone else’s"

I found this quote particularly striking, as it pertains to the "then why" question that I am asked far too often when barroom philosophizing. It's asked by the faithful whenever I share my secular views on god(s), souls, or meaning/importance/significance/reason for 'me/us/life'. The implications of the question makes me curious about two things. The first is why the faithful conclude a 'sentient' reason for their own existence. And while this is a cornerstone in most religious thought, I have seen the same ideology in many, if not a majority, of secularists, agnostics and atheists. It is the initial, assumed, basal acceptance of a 'meaning' or 'reason' for the existence of anything that I find most troubling. It is not 'reason' in the sense of cause-and-effect (the rock falls, the reason is gravity), but reason in a conscious sense, something non-physical directing something tangible (i.e. a tsunami, meeting a future love of your life, the existence of man or thought).The second issue that I'm curious about is the stubbornly held notion that, while maintaining the philosophy of a reason for existence, the faithful condemn the belief that their is no reason. At this point, usually two or three deep, I'll be asked the "then why" question. Familiar to most open agnostics, it goes something like "If their really is no god/reason for us being here/meaning of life/significance of the universe, then why do you follow the law/follow the rules/not just kill yourself/not just go kill;rape;steal from others?" The question has always scared me, mostly because it has been asked so many times by so many people. It only leads me to presume that the only thing keepling the faithful from murder, theft, rape and suicide is a notion of a watchful eye or a predetermined 'path'. The gravity of this widely held philosophy should not be overlooked. Anyone who has ever been asked the question recognizes the sincerity and certainty of those who are asking. Such a person is both steadfast in their faith, and quite possibly dangerous if shaken from it.

what about your acceptance of things you cannot possibly prove, either logically or empirically, such as that there is a physical world out there (instead of the universe being a simulation in someone’s mind)? Isn’t that faith? Nope, it’s a reasonable assumption that I adopt for purely pragmatic reasonsIsn't calling it "a reasonable assumption" begging the question? And how would you define "pragmatic reasons"? Wouldn't a religious believer say that going to heaven is the ultimate "pragmatic reason"? (This calls to mind Pascal's wager.)

Another example of something that can't be proven logically or empirically is Occam's Razor. (Notwithstanding the considerable discussion on the Wikipedia page.)

I have a thought to share. Massimo, you have said before that belief in god needlessly complicates things because we know that science is sufficient to explain everything so postulating the existence of some deity just requires you to make a heap of metaphysical assumptions. What I have to add is the thought the most fundamental constituents of reality cannot be explained. If they are explained than you have smaller components comprising them and those components are hence more fundamental. Whatever fundamental reality is we must just except it (I love the word "fundamental" if you can't tell).A common argument of creationists is that scientists ignore what the cause of the Big Bang is, but if the big bang was fundamental to what reality is then it does not need an explanation. All of this means exactly that believing in god just overcomplicates things. Anything fundamental to reality does not itself need to be explained so using god as an “explanation” is pointless. I am not sure these are new thoughts or if they make any sense so I’d love to get some thoughts on them. I would also like to point out this website:http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_21_1.htmlIn it the author lays out a compressive explanation for why science trumps religion. What it has to say is really cool it fleshes out something you never really think about. This site was something that really helped convince me to switch to atheism. Massimo, I should thank you for being another such influence.

Massimo,I was happily reading your post, agreeing all the way along until I came to the following passage, of which I thought questionable, and needs further explanation. :)

"Reason is a tool, fashioned by natural selection to deal with largely mundane problems of survival and reproduction in a specific type of physical and social environment."

How exactly does it work to say that "reason" was fashioned by natural selection? Certainly I can understand that our brains and cognitive abilities are shaped by natural selection. But "reason" seems to be a concept that we use to describe a pattern of thinking, and doesnt seem itself to be a directly fashioned by natural selection.

Or maybe I am just grasping at straws trying too find something to disagree with. But still, the phrase doesn't sit well with me.

"Still, while faith is obviously emotional, it is not a synonym of emotion; the latter is necessary, the former is parasitic on it."

This cannot be accurate because every instance in the Old Testament of people stepping forward into a circumstance that seemed too difficult to conquer required that they trust in God's Faithfulness and deny their emotions. Faith is in fact the opposite of being emotional and has nothing whatsoever to do with things like acts of terrorism.

a) It has something to do firstly with being right or having at least the desire to be right with God.

b) thankfully the result is that God meets us then where we are.

The bizarre thing is, on that note of God meeting us, Massimo, when my wrenched shoulder was healed instantly a week or two ago, I wasn't even really asking to be healed! I kind of had wishful thinking that the pain would go away...but that was it. But in spite of of my apparently no-so-strong faith, God met me where I was. !!!???

Remember when I posted this video? The 12 year old in the vid prays for a shoulder, and all of a sudden, I have no pain in that left shoulder and have none ever since!

One of our daughters works with this older Italian lady at an Italian (food chain) restaurant. This lady has worked there like 16 years. She tells all the girls what is wrong with their lives and why they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. Of course they all REALLY APPRECIATE THIS. ROFLMBO!!

My daughter is the one of the few that gets along with her rather well because she gives her respect even if she doesn't always agree her.

You don't seem that extremely emotional like many Italians, M, but you certainly are opinionated....

"Isn't calling it "a reasonable assumption" begging the question? And how would you define "pragmatic reasons"? Wouldn't a religious believer say that going to heaven is the ultimate "pragmatic reason"?"

There is a large literature on pragmatism, which obviously would take a separate post to say the least. As for my reasonable assumption, no, I don't think that's circular at all, since I consider a course of action that works in practice to be a reasonable stab at a problem.

Many people (especially Catholics) would take a dim view of this post. They would say that (following the Thomistic line), faith is not "belief without evidence", it's "intellectual assent". So to have faith in X is for the will to assent to the truth of X.

Whilst it threatens to start a nice game of semantics, I've always thought that this view (while perfectly consistent) trivializes the whole notion. I end up having faith in literally any proposition I regard as true. It does, however, get theists off the hook regarding the "belief without evidence" trope.

Can you say a few words about this more traditional view of faith?

(Obviously, everything you say applies in bucketloads to evangelicals. I'm not disputing that at all).

Despite being raised in a completely religious family (thank goodness), my Mum once said to me, after I talked about my complete atheism, that I should try to keep an open mind. What an interesting comment! It never ceases to amaze me how so many people consider me (or any atheist for that matter) close minded when I see the 'faithfull' as much more close minded. Many do not accept evolution despite all the evidence, most refuse to even listen to logical arguments about the lack of evidence of supernatural being(s). I'm very open minded to anything that has some evidence. I've never been to China but I believe (to use Massimo's wording) in it completely. To not believe in China because I've never been there - now that would be close minded!

SC: my Mum once said to me, after I talked about my complete atheism, that I should try to keep an open mind. What an interesting comment! It never ceases to amaze me how so many people consider me (or any atheist for that matter) close minded when I see the 'faithfull' as much more close minded."

Outlining the fact that the matter of close/open mindedness is really just an issue of what YOU intend to do with the rest of your life and the choices that you'll make all along the way from that point forward.

Nothing more broad minded about it, its a mere matter of the will.

"Many do not accept evolution despite all the evidence,"

And it's right smart you know to be a little picky about where you'll spend the rest of your eternity.

Nice post. I'm definitely sending this along to some people of those people who give me the same tripe about how one "can't have only reason" and that "a lack of faith is a lack of emotion and humanity". You have injected happiness into a life that is allegedly otherwise devoid of emotion!

"Faith means that one believes something regardless or even in spite of the evidence."That's the conventional definition, but I've heard "people of faith" define it differently, as something akin to loyalty. It's easy to counter arguments if you redefine the terms.

Great post. It will change few, if any, minds though. Most people will always believe what it pleases them to believe. Until the supernatural can be proven false in such a way that is utterly undeniable by even the most intractable theist, and that can never happen, religious faith will be with us.

I'm sure that many people, including religious people, understand and use the word faith as you have described. However, I don't think that is how the New Testament writers used the word. They urged their hearers who were acquainted with certain compelling facts and events to put their trust and hope in Jesus. For others who were not, they appealed to empirical arguments and reason as a basis for faith. Certainly, you will agree that the truths we believe, whether consciously or not, have consequences.

yes, there are several definitions of faith, but I go by people's behavior, and it seems to me that defining faith as I did -- belief regardless or in spite of evidence -- fits the bill very well.

It is true that Christians among others have a long tradition of apologetics, of trying to *argue* in favor of their faith. But for one thing I find theological arguments of that sort pretty vacuous. And more importantly, whenever I have seen a Christian in difficulty arguing a point, s/he plays the faith trump card as if that solved everything. Seems a cop out to me...

How in the world do you come to that conclusion? Assuming that by "godless left" you mean atheists: 1. I am a Humanist, not just an atheist. I believe that all humans deserve equal rights and compassion. 2. Humanists are generally very open minded, prepared to believe anything that has real evidence. I believe I said this already! It would be helpful if you could provide an example of a closed minded ideology you believe we align ourselves with.

As to why you linked to a story about religious people stoning women for not wanting to be sexually assaulted legally, I'm not entirely sure how that helps your position.

It's absolutely true that theists routinely chop and change as the argument suits them. Massimo is also right in that 'belief without evidence' is a good way of describing believers' behaviour in this area.

Of course, theists don't like #1 as it sounds pejorative. However, they are all for 'other ways of knowing' and all that jazz. It's actually accurate: they don't believe because of the evidence; they believe for other (unspecified here) reasons.

If you attack those reasons, you're a fundamentalist atheist; if you ask sympathetically about the reasons you get an earful of apologetic garbage.

"As to why you linked to a story about religious people stoning women for not wanting to be sexually assaulted legally, I'm not entirely sure how that helps your position.'"

The left does not hold to a moral code that the stronger fitter of the species, in any given set of circumstance, needs to be restrained by civility or morality.

Under a proper and reasoned moral code, one has no right to take advantage of a child (born or unborn) who cannot defend itself anymore than we would a woman who cannot defend herself against her stronger male counterpart.

If the rights of the individual and that of its personhood does not begin BEFORE birth ...it never begins.

Location cannot be a determiner or rights.

Clearly the prevailing and true principle then is that "The chicken came first". And if one protects the notion of "chicken hood" there always hope that one day there might be an egg.

Meaning that...ACCORDING TO NATURE Babies are equally as important as their mothers and visa versa.

And that is how the left ends up siding with Muslim beleifs essentially against woman's rights and freedom

Yes, I have heard my Christian friends pull the "faith" trump card when backed into a corner. I wince when it happens. We must have integrity and go with the truth as we understand it. A call to faith should not violate that. That is not how I understand faith in the NT sense. To me some of the best apologetics are by the NT writers themselves. I've agreed to post some of those on your facebook page for reaction so I won't take up space here.

I think I would qualify as a quasi-realist. See my paper: Pigliucci, M. 2003. On the relationship between science and ethics. Zygon 38(4):871-894.

My position is that ethics is locally objective, meaning that given certain conditions (like, being a social sentient animal) one can derive ethical rules that apply reasonably to a broad range of situations.

"But why start with that assumption, and not the assumption that Englishmen are entitled to special rights, or that Richard is entitled to special rights?"

Because of John Rawls' principle of the veil of ignorance. If you didn't know you were going to be an Englishmen, then you wouldn't subscribe to special rights for Englishmen.

"How is anyone (relativist or not) going to deal with the possibility of rape? They are going to vote for laws against it, promote respect for other people and revulsion against rape."

But that means that they are implying that rape is somehow *wrong*, and not arbitrarily so. How do they get there?

Massimo said: "On the contrary, faith has a nasty tendency to make bumbling simpletons of us, to waste our energies, time and resources on pursuit that do not improve the human condition, and at its worst it convinces people to drive planes into skyscrapers, or to mount “holy” crusades to slaughter the “infidel.”..."

Right on! Not to get too metaphysical, but it seems to me that faith is just another vector in the universe's relentless tendency towards increased of Entropy. So much energy wasted and unrecoverable. So much disorder created out of hard won order.Remember folks, it takes hard work to reason things through whereas it is mindlessly easy to have faith.Remember also, that true reason is the enemy of faith. This is why no less a figure than Martin Luther said that "Reason is the Devil's Whore". That is why the religionists exhort their followers to believe rather than to think. Accordingly, try as we may, I'm afraid that we will always have the millstone of faith dragging us down. As defeatist as this may sound, I still feel that there is hope. After all, order can arise from disorder, evidence life.To close, let me quote a bit of doggeral latin. To wit... "Non Illegitimaous Carborundum" (i.e. Don't let the bastards wear you down!)

There is a type of faith which equates to intellectual dishonesty. Most of the posts are directed at this. I sympathize with anyone burned by this kind of faith. This view of faith can be a straw man when applied across the board as ahswan pointed out. It is hard to recognize our assumptions, and this seems especially true for some on this post with a naturalistic worldview. Atoms became molecules, which exquistely formed amino acids, which organized into complex proteins (all with a left-handed configuration), and even more complex, encoded DNA formed which then became messenger RNA, etc. until there was a living cell, full of functional structures and mechanisms--all without natural selection, for there was no self replication at the pre-DNA level. How? Evolution happened. We don't know how at this stage, just that it did. Folks, this is faith! (The purpose of a theory is not to serve as dogma but to explain how.) Science as an attempt to reconcile observed fact with your naturalistic presuppositions is an honest and rational endeavor. But it is not honest to pretend you have acheived it, or that those who acknowledge the mystery are irrational.

When I get disheartened by the lack of reason in public dialogue I remember this gem from Bertrand Russell's 'Harm That Good Men Do':

"The power of reason is thought small in these days, but I remain an unrepentant rationalist. Reason may be a small force, but it is constant and works always in one direction, while the forces of unreason destroy one another in futile strife. Therefore every orgy of unreason strengthens the friends of reason, and shows afresh that they are the only true friends of humanity."

Since reason really isn't the devils whore, (martin Luther said plenty of incorrect stuff) whats PARTICULARLY well reasoned about being "pro-death"?

The premise of being pro-death is one that has the individual deciding who is convenient to keep around and who is not. It's a product of humanism obviously. In the context of reason, it is completely 'reasonless' to be anti cap punishment but pro-abortion at the same time. (which a lot of people are)

If ones heart isn't right, he is perfectly content apparently to live alongside people who have done all kids of murderous things all the while hoping to be able to have the "right" at the same time to end the life of someone who has never had a chance to even make the decision to be good or not. Pro-death is truly anti-freewill.

This might be hijacking the thread a bit, but the reason why we are against capital punishment is due to the very real danger of executing an innocent man. There are way too many cases of wrongful conviction.

Sending an innocent man to death undermines the credibility of the justice system. Society cannot function unless individual expect justice in society.

As for the pro-choice argument in the abortion debate, they argue that harm done to the kid and the mother (who is most often just another kid) if allowed to live unwanted is greater than the harm done in abortion.

You are coming from a deontological perspective, I'm coming from a utilitarian perspective. Both are supported by reason.

Massimo, I totally agree with you. There is, however, something that I think you are missing: Another form of faith, that we can call ideology.

The very way we conceive our existence is overdetermined by ideology. Think of money, for example. Don't we have some kind of faith in money?

We know, rationally speaking, that money is just a social convention, a mean of interchange, a mere concept. And yet we enact it; we assume it as it was some kind of natural phenomena; we unconsciously think that money has certain attributes that we know it actually doesn't have. What about free market, or liberal democracy? Don't we have some kind of faith on these things too? When it comes to human affairs, we have to be very carefull. Sometimes ideology makes "reason" the ultimate form of idealism.

I see your point, but no, I don't think we believe in money, free markets or even liberal democracies as a matter of faith. People can make reasonable (if sometimes flawed) arguments for why free markets are or are not a good idea; or why a liberal democratic society is better than another type of government.

As for defining reason, I think it is an ability of the human mind to think, understand and form judgments through logical processes informed by evidence. We can quibble on the specifics, but you know what I mean.

I see a problem here: the difference between faith and ideology is merely formal: How they proclaim themselves. Ideology introduces itself by making arguments, while faith doesn't need to. But the mechanics of belief are exactly the same in both cases. Faith tells you what's wrong and what's right. Ideology gives you arguments and tells you not to question them at all. You can keep a certain distance from ideology though. But the thing is you can do the same with faith: You can always say "here's me, and here's my faith". The question is: who calls the shots?

Your definition of reason has an external point of reference: evidence. Rather than quibbling on the specifics, I would ask if the products of the human mind can't be also seen as evidence. What kind of evidence proves the symbolic order in which we're all immersed?

By leaps and bounds, more people are murdered wrongly by murderers than are sent to the electric chair or whatever the form of cap punishment is being used.

Some Scandi countries use extreme measures on the first DWI offense - 6 months in jail. Those countries DWI rate is significantly less than the counties around them. I mean who wants to go to jail for like 6 months? Murder is a very different matter. If you want it almost eradicated from your society, the punishment has to be made meaningful. Going to prison and being taken care of for the next 60 years is not restitutionary at all.

And 'pro-choice' is a very badly labeled term. It is in fact "pro-death" in it's intent. As you said: "Sending an innocent man to death undermines the credibility of the justice system."Sending a TRULY INNOCENT child (because only children and unborn ones are innocent) to death does that AND MORE. And it is by all means Faithlessness that causes people to be Pro-death.

You know..."his mother or father are no good ...or they just don't want the child, so he is worthless as well". That's faithless.

I was not defending ideology, which to me is as much a matter of faith as the religious variety. But I do not consider capitalism or social democracy merely ideologies (though some people do treat them as such): they are an economic and a political theory, respectively, which can be examined in the light of reason.

As for "evidence," yes the artifacts of the human mind do count as evidence, but not all evidence is created equal, so to speak. If you are talking about personal religious experience, I think that is a pretty low level of evidence, and it is more likely evidence of psychological delusion than of the existence of the supernatural.

"If you are talking about personal religious experience, I think that is a pretty low level of evidence, and it is more likely evidence of psychological delusion than of the existence of the supernatural."

.."psychological delusion" But there really could be other explanations you know.

Have you guys never had sport injuries? You ought have lived with my painful shoulder for the last 4-5 months. And when the pain was gone, it was like GONE instantly. I could not even believe it. I mean, it took me a week to really understand and accept it.

Geeze, Massimo, I am like your living Miracle!

Either I'm lying, but you know I'm not because I respect and fear God absolutely and completely, or I am not and you have to re review like 27 years of education.

Massimo, then I agree with you: ideologies are a matter of faith. As for capitalism and social democracy... it's true: they are not mere ideologies. However i think that the theoretical basis of capitalism is more ideological than rational.

I mean, we know that the current situation (world distribution of income, poverty, exclusion, racism, explotation, structural unemployment, financial hypertrophy, ecological sustainability, etc) leads to a world catastrophe. However we act as if we don't now this. We act as if everything can be solved with "more democracy".

I'm okey with your definition of evidence.

Let me make another question: Is "reason" a synonym for "scientific method"? Is there any way of not following the scientific method -even in a primitive way-, without being "irrational"?

no reason is not synonymous with the scientific method. Science needs reason, but reason itself is broader. For instance, philosophy uses reason, and so do logic and mathematics, without any of these being sciences.

dolmancé: "Millions of starving children die everyday. Why your painful shoulder is a top priority to this god?"

Its a great question.

As the youngest of five kids and probably the most irritating of the whole bunch,(and I feel a bit like a step child sometimes), I guess if there is hope that GOD would choose to do something for me for me there is hope for literally anyone.

And not only was I not that inclined to "signs and wonders", and my husband even as a believer is still almost absolutely against it, but I wasn't even praying that my shoulder would be healed!

All I know is that there is a point in this video where this little girl reaches up to her shoulder and says someone is being healed of shoulder pain and my shoulder pain just went away that minute. Look at her face and tell me she is not sincere in her interest and attempts to pray for people and see them healed.

I just see purity and truth in her eyes. And that's real uncommon in this day and age.

Rene, abortion and capital punishment aside, I'm curious about the statement, "I myself would be against an abortion on a personal level, but I do not have the right to impose it on everybody else." (i.e., "we can't legislate morality"). Would you make the same statement about, say, murder? If not, by what criterion do we decide which morality is legislatable?

Actually I think the whole point of legislation is to enforce morality.

The reason I wouldn't enforce my own personal pro-life instincts on others is because I understand that the pro-choice side has very valid objections and I think it will do more harm than good in society to make abortion completely illegal.

Tough question and a bad answer.Atheist answer: life sucks.Theist answer: depends on the theism.Biblical answer: The Bible addresses the root cause of poverty and hunger in the world. We live in a fallen, cursed, and tragic world because God allows mankind the freedom to make moral choices. This problem will be reconciled outside of a naturalistic worldview: "...their god is the stomach...this world is the limit of their horizon." Phil.3:19

"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. The [religious leaders], who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. He said to them, 'You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight.'" Luke 16:14-15

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’" Luke 16:19-31

The question of injustice and hunger is a separate issue from faith and reason, but it was such a good and disturbing question, I wanted to try and provide what I understand to be part of the answer from my perspective.

Steve said...."Biblical answer: The Bible addresses the root cause of poverty and hunger in the world. We live in a fallen, cursed, and tragic world because God allows mankind the freedom to make moral choices."

First Steve, atheism is concerned with the question of whether god exists or not, it provides us no starting point for why people suffer and die from poverty, malnutrition, and disease.

Your Biblical answer is a simplistic psuedo answer based on faith and belief in a fairy tale of original sin, Adam and Eve etc..

The question can be explored through various secular diciplines of political-economy, history, biology/ecology, demography etc.. Of course these diciplines don't provide us with a simplistic definitive answer as to why people suffer and die from poverty, malnutrition, and disease. But they can be based on reason and empirical investigation.

Of course the original question is why God would be so bothered to heal Cal's little pain in her shoulder, but still ignore the enormous suffering of the poor in this world. And you again give a shitty non-answer to that question.

The real answer is that there probably isn't a God, and Cal's pain was relieved by other more naturalistic means.

I should have been more precise. Atheism does give us a starting point in that we should leave faith based fairy tales behind and search for explanations that are open to reason and empirical investigation.

"I was not making a case for the Biblical answer, only describing it."

Of course you were, but you can't really make the case because all you have to go on is a biblical fairy tale.

And it should be noted that it is an insidous ideology. It leads us to believe that these things are out of our collective human hands, that we cannot solve human problems, except through begging an imagined super-natural being.

"The answer restated in brief:God does care.God will respond."

And you believe this against all contrary evidence. i.e. through FAITH! If God existed, then he has permitted millions of innocents suffer from both natural disasters and human created circumstances. He has not responded, only a fool would believe that he cares or will respond.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?-- Epicurus

Sheldon: "And it should be noted that it is an insidious ideology. It leads us to believe that these things are out of our collective human hands, that we cannot solve human problems..."

On the contrary, the passage I cited in Luke is one example among many teachings that have resulted in Christian humanitarian efforts: hospitals, aid organizations, development work, etc. on a large scale in comparison to other non-governmental organizations, including atheistic groups.

"Presently man makes moral choices, and both the innocent and guilty experience the sad consequences." I believe this is the reply to Epicurus. The alternative would be for God to prevent consequences to moral choice, which means there is no moral choice (since it doesn't matter), or else not to allow moral choice - to make us robots.

A lot of debating has happened over this post about morality/immorality of abortion. I? 'd assume that two major concerns bring in the issue of ethics here--cruelty (inflicting pain) and violation of human rights ("taking away" life). If I've to name the issue, it's this--is a zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo (all can be called "conceptus") an "individual" in the usual sense of the term?

Whether one considers abortion ethical or unethical would entirely depend on how much one considers a given conceptus an individual. Zygote, morula and blastocyst (the last develops on around 7th day following fertilization and consists of a spherical lining of cells with fluid in it) don't have any nervous system so as to speak. So they can't experience pain.

I'm not sure, but the fetus must be acquiring ability perceive pain by around 12th week. But there's another issue--that of violation of human rights. This is entirely my personal opinion--one can talk of violation of human rights, only if a DESIRE to live has developed (in the fetus). I don't think this happens for a long time even after the child is born. But even before the child is born, the parents (especially, the mother) are in possession of the child, so if someone wants to harm the child without parents' consent, that would be unethical.

If all this clinical analysis sounds too petrifying, I'd like to make it clear that it's infinitely better to observe simple precautions (contraception), rather than allow the situation to complicate (both ethically and medically) to reach a state of full-blown pregnancy.

If someone really feels that I've no human emotions, and can't empathize or imagine the said fetus' ordeal, then I'd like to ask if killing a fetus is wrong, then how come eating animals (chicken or lamb, as examples) is not? Do they not feel pain? Do they not have a desire to live? Plants can't "feel" pain. And, I've not seen too many religions that say abortion is immoral, also say that eating meat is too.

Ketan,If I understand you, taking the life of a very young child (with parental consent) is ethical, and you do not eat meat for ethical reasons. I commend you for following the logical consistency of your position that humans are animals and no more. Clearly what we "believe" does have consequences.

Steve, you got me wrong. Talking of consent of parents was only with regard to the issue of human rights. Otherwise abortion becomes unethical the moment fetus starts experiencing pain (a point I'm not sure about but might be 12 weeks into the pregnancy). You look at my post carefully. I've not expressed my opinion, except for when I said that contraception is much (infinitely) better than abortion. I've not taken the issue of abortion lightly at all. I've not implied that it be the primary method of birth control. I introduced these points only in attempt to make the terms of debate more objective for others.

And you'll appreciate that pain can be of various kinds--I don't know how an "unwanted" child would be brought up. But I'm sure such an upbringing would definitely be painful. What pain would you prefer to inflict on a human being--physical pain of 10 min as fetus or mental agony of 18 years till that fetus becomes an independent adult?

Plus, not aborting equals compelling parents to bring up a child, which is a financial and social engagement of at least 15 years.

I've commented here keeping in mind couples who might want to have kids some time later, but end up with pregnancy because of "contraceptive failure". Otherwise, I think allowing situation come to abortion when it's so easy to prevent it by simple contraception is pretty stupid. Though again, for which I'm not sure if asking the couple to bring up a kid for 18 years is the appropriate punishment.

Plus, there are issues of aborting when the fetus is unviable, or might suffer from handicap in life. I'm not saying abortion is a simple issue. It'd be wrong to assume that those undergoing abortion are curette-happy (like trigger-happy). They're forced to make a less difficult (abortion) choice out of two difficult (the other one being bringing up a child they didn't want in the first place) ones, and they should be sympathized with rather than casting moral judgements on them.

I've not equated human life with animal life, but a human Zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo can be equated, because it only has POTENTIAL for life. Statistically, around 50% of blastocysts abort SPONTANEOUSLY. If we're to talk of potential for independent life as equal to life, then I'd like to point out that a human female has 500 viable ova at the beginning of her adolescence, so each time she ovulates, she's passing up a "potential" human life. What do we do about that?

“What pain would you prefer to inflict on a human being--physical pain of 10 min as fetus or mental agony of 18 years till that fetus becomes an independent adult?”To me, the outcome (no life) of physical pain of 10 min (possibly less) as fetus is infinitely more detrimental than the mental agony of 18 years. I had a mental agony while growing up: discrimination towards my disabled Dad and indirectly me… so, should my parents have aborted the lovely me?

And also you seem to have forgotten the option of “adoption.”

I am not anti-abortion, and I understand no one should take the decision (choice) lightly. I just have problems with this statement. It is not a sound argument.

It's true that I didn't understand you correctly. Thanks for clarifying. You position on abortion is more nuanced, and you do not take abortion lightly.

I think physical or emotional pain as a criterion for taking an existing life is quite dodgy. People can be murdered painlessly. People can legally divorce for emotional distress. Can they legally murder for this?

I agree that "potential for life" cannot be a criterion for preservation. Are there those who argue that it is?

Q-ma, if I've to talk of you, it's good and fortunate that you were brought into this world and have had an enjoyable experience. Personally, I'm too far from facing an abortion-like situation for my spouse (I don't have a spouse, and am unlikely to have one for quite a few years). If and when I get into such a situation, I might not be able to appreciate all the emotional factors involved. The issue was when to start considering a conceptus an individual, and I'd just tried to throw light on that aspect. I'll never even imagine advising a couple/potential mother to think of aborting if they feel they can bring up a child. The issue assumes important only when they think they're incapable of. If you ask me should you've been aborted, how could I ever say "yes"! I can only say that had I got spontaneously aborted as a zygote, I'd have been alright with it :) as I'd have NOT known what (if I'd have known, that is) I was losing. I didn't think about adoption as I'm from India, and not too may adoptions take place here. So, that's also partly responsible for how my thinking has been conditioned in this regard.

Steve, thanks for a balanced response. The issue of abortion is very complicated--the conceptus changes from a lump of undifferentiated cells to something resembling a human baby in matter of weeks. Even the precise definition of when "pregnancy" starts is mired in disagreements. As of now, it is defined to begin with implantation, which occurs by 7th day after fertilization. But the earliest a pregnancy can be confirmed is only 8 days after fertilization (1 to 2 days after pregnancy starts) that too if someone is actively suspecting and monitoring for pregnancy. Otherwise, most of the pregnancies come to attention only after the first menses don't occur on the expected day (12-14 days after fertilization). Many contraceptive measures act both before and after fertilization. That's a contentious issue for many.

KETAN: "What pain would you prefer to inflict on a human being--physical pain of 10 min as fetus or mental agony of 18 years till that fetus becomes an independent adult?"

Personally I prefer the the "agony" of waiting 18 years till "the fetus" becomes and adult.

LOL! You are almost funny Ketan. Who told you this kind of stuff?

It is agony sometimes, no doubt. But I sure as heck would rather go through it with MY kids than with anyone else in the world. I don't know how or why, but I have like the best three kids anyone could ever ask for!! They all work hard, they're very bright. Oldest daughter is employee of the month at the very nice reputable Co she works for. Our "baby" (who's 18 :) has two jobs. Today she'll work from 7:30 this morning (first job) till 9:00 or 10:00 tonight (second job).

Does anyone have kids that are this wonderful and responsible for their ages, or what? LOL!

I mean, so many people just have this awful veiw of kids or having more kids and I just don't get it.. Parenting is totally what you make of it. The idea that I could have taken the life of any of our children as absolutely unbelievable. I'd rather harm myself than even think of it!

You guys need to get a clue. Don't listen to people who say that kind of thing to you, Ketan. It is wrong and foolish to the extreme.

"not a single problem — be it scientific, philosophical or socio-political — has ever been solved or even mildly ameliorated by faith."

I couldnt disagree more. For example, whenever the ancients would take on massive projects like building churches, piramids, canals, castles, city walls, all these things required huge amounts of faith, partly because the amount of time that those projects took ensured that no one person could see any project from start to finish. Faith that the person before you did his job right, and faith that the person after you would do his job right was at least one of the things that made those massive project possible.As another example, as a kid, you had to have faith that your parents and teachers had your best interest at heart when they were teaching you to read and write, hence the possibility of this blog.

Secularism does not need to be the opposite of faith. Until that is recognized, secularism wont become mainstream.

"not a single problem — be it scientific, philosophical or socio-political — has ever been solved or even mildly ameliorated by faith."

Ironically, this sweeping categorical statement is itself nothing short of dogma.

At the end of the 19th century mathematicians experienced a crisis in the development of set theory. French mathematicians, who were rationalists (Baire, Lesbesgue, and Borel), tried to keep mathematics separate from metaphysics, but they faced an abyss they could not cross. Borel abandoned set theory for his sanity. Baire committed suicide. Russian mathematicians at the time were mystics. (Mysticism is the belief that intuitive truths exist incapable of apprehension through rationalism alone). Egorov, Florensky, and Luzin, among others, viewed metaphysics and science as unified, so that they welcomed the connection. Their worldview enabled them to develop theories which resolved the crisis.

sorry, but I think your recent posts have holes large enough for the Titanic to sink in.

Of course religious people built cathedrals and solved mathematical problems. But their faith didn't have anything to do with their ability to do so. It may have had to do with their motivations (in some cases more than in others), but motivations can easily be find in a completely secular worldview.

Faith is precisely what enabled the mathematics of Egorov, Florenky, and Luzin, and it was the philosophical bias of the French rationalists which hindered their science. An objective source for this history is the book "Naming Infinity: A True Story of Religious Mysticism and Mathematical Creativity" by Graham and Kantor (Harvard Press).

I discovered this blog today and loved it and feel that this is an entry I can first attempt to add a little to. I often hear that “Faith is belief without evidence” and here “regardless or even in spite of the evidence.”.

I write not to change your mind, but just for fun and to see what your response would be given some fun consideration of my points. Consider it half serious and half tongue in cheek.

To a large extent I agree. However I am a firm believer in trying to keep discourse open with my antagonists. Anything that infuriates them I avoid. Discourse is all we have as humans to progress together in life.

That said, in discourse with theists I find that if you say either of these things above their eyes glaze over and you lose them. This is because they KNOW they have evidence and that you are wrong. If they think you are wrong from the outset they will listen to nothing further you have to say. Discourse dies.

The problem is they HAVE got evidence. It is the same evidence we have, they merely interpret it differently. They do not think that they believe “in spite” of the evidence, but because of the very same evidence you cite. You only need to listen to Kent Hovind to understand this. For example what we call skulls of common ancestors he thinks are just different because he assumes we used to live for 900 years.

No, where the problem lies is in the fact that their interpretation of the evidence is wrong. It is not that they have no evidence or ignore it. The reason the interpretation is wrong is that they start by assuming there is a god and then fitting the evidence to that. There is a creationist explanation for everything put to them.

The problem is, to make it work; one first has to ASSUME a creator. Given that assumption all the things Hovind says are actually totally rational and correct.

Faith for me is not therefore exactly as explained here as belief ”regardless or even in spite of the evidence”. I put it to you that faith is “The willingness to assume to be true that which you are trying to prove to be true”. I find this definition more satisfying and less likely to cause the opposition to glaze over and stop listening.

I liken it often to the people who think the number 23 controls everything. If you assume this to be true and then go looking for the evidence you find it. And how. Its EVERYWHERE. We are steeped in evidence that confirms it. What none of them notice is that it works for ANY number. The trick to converting them is not to try and prove them wrong, but to get them to realise it works for any number. They know they have evidence, you can not tell them otherwise, so instead show them their evidence is JUST as valid for 12, 17, 19, you name it.

What confirms my definition to me is that the bible seems to not only KNOW this definition is true, but it positively recommends the believer engage in it. We all know where it does this! Believers and 23ists alike take heed: “Seek and you shall find”.

Yes. Quite. Of course you will. It would be an actual real genuine miracle if you didn’t!

In general, we find it hard to recognize our assumptions. Atheists are no exception.

Science is limited to the natural by definition. Some atheists cite science's providing no evidence for God's existence as an argument. But, by definition, any evidence pointing to a reality outside nature is excluded as non-science. Overlooking this presupposition, science is mistakenly equated with rationality by such atheists.

As another example, when confronted with data (such as Old Testament prophecies, the historical case for the resurrection, or compelling arguments for the historical reliability of the New Testament documents), this evidence is discounted almost solely on the basis of a bias against the supernatural. If you presuppose there is nothing above the natural order, any other explanation, no matter how far-fetched, will appear to be the most reasonable one.

I don't disagree with your take. However, when creationists argue on the basis of evidence they are not using faith, they are trying to use reason (however misguided and badly applied). When one confronts them with strong counter arguments their last resort is to play the faith trump card. But that is a different sort of move, and quite outside of rational discourse.

Steve,

it's not that miracles are excluded by definition, it's that the evidence in their favor is so scant to making it really hard to believe them (as Hume eloquently pointed out more than two centuries ago).

That's an interesting statement:"it's not that miracles are excluded by definition" [from science]

So when Behe or Dr. Dean Kenyon argue that the possibility of DNA or other cellular structures arising by natural processes is so improbable statistically that the data clearly infers design (intelligence), you would agree that such argumentation lies within the realm of science (whether you agree with it or not)?

Do you think Hume would maintain that the origin of a living cell is not a miracle, and, if so, on what grounds? Here, I maintain, is where presuppositions come into play.

"The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational inquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine theism and religion." —Hume

I suppose this answers my question. Hume did believe in miracles, in relation to origins.

Hume's argument against miracles...

"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined."

The problem I have with this kind of argument is that Hume defines the laws of nature as having been established by a firm and UNALTERABLE experience. Following logically from this definition of natural law, a miracle cannot happen.

Hume's definitions: natural law-that which is unalterablemiracle-violation of natural law

The problem, of course, is that Hume cleverly set up a logical inconsistency by defining natural law as something that can never be violated. Or perhaps it wasn't clever but genuine; maybe he too was unaware of his presupposition prejudicing the outcome.

no I did not mean that miracles as a concept are within the realm of science. But a rational inquirer is not limited to science.

Second, Behe's argument from improbability is bogus because he cannot actually calculate the relevant probabilities. It amounts to "I (Behe) cannot imagine how ... therefore ..." It's called an argument from ignorance (Behe's in this case).

Third, Hume was famously the best debunker of the ID proposition, but he also famously did not have an alternative to propose. It took Darwin.

Finally, Hume's argument against miracles can be recast in modern terms using the Bayesian framework, and it works beautifully.

"Third, Hume was famously the best debunker of the ID proposition, but he also famously did not have an alternative to propose. It took Darwin."

So Darwinian evolution explains the origin of the first living cell, of DNA, and cellular structures? You are a man of faith!

Since your field is evolutionary theory, can you explain what was the mechanism of evolution at this level? I'm not the specialist, but it seems to me the details are noticeably lacking. The function of a scientific theory is to explain how. Here we have FAITH in a theory that doesn't explain how, but it is being offered in your post as an explanation.

sounds to me like you are close to willfully misunderstand me. Of course Darwin didn't explain the evolution of the cell, nobody knew anything about cells at that point. I was talking about evolution as a general mechanism to explain the appearance of design, which is what Hume was missing (he didn't know about cells either).

As for molecular and cell evolutionary biology, I'm afraid you'll have to pick up a few textbooks for the details...

No willful misunderstanding (or offense) intended. Your reference to Darwin was in the context of my earlier post about DNA, the cell, etc. Upon your clarification in this post, I do think I understood you correctly.

With all respect, an appeal to authority (or unspecified textbooks) hardly seems an answer to my assertion that no evolutionary mechanism exists at the cellular level.

no offense taken, but you can't be seriously expecting me to give you an explanation of molecular evolutionary theory in the answer to a comment in relation to a blog post that had nothing to do with evolution.

If you are serious about this, I suggest starting from Michael Lynch's excellent book, The Origins of Genome Architecture:

Yes, I see the difference. The difference you espouse here is what WE perceive as faith and what they PLAY as faith. However I think there is not that much of a difference!!!

Faith is how I defined it above. The card they play is to claim that such a starting assumption is a virtue. “Faith” is not the virtue as they claim but “If you make the same starting assumption as me” is!!!!

“on invisible wings even fools can fly for dreams are made of water and water is made of sky”

I see I was not so far off with my 23 example either. The muslims have found that the number "19" is somehow magical in the koran for the exact same reasons as the number 23 above.

Apparently the only reason I might still have faith in some things, is due to me not understanding what faith is, or have a personal meaning to the word. Regardless, most likely I have faith in things that weather I have the faith or not, the end result would be the same.For instance, I have faith that things will turn out for the better eventually if I'll make an effort to improve them. It might not, but I have no way to prove that before the fact, and being optimistic seems more beneficial than sitting and waiting for a bleak end to consume me.